Iraq_War

The War in Iraq Colin Okie  At precisely 10:15pm Eastern Time, March 19th, 2003, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, addressed the nation with these words: “My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger” (“Bush” 1).  This declaration began the war in Iraq.  Regardless of the initial objectives of the government for occupying Iraq, the current goal of this war is to fully free the Iraqi people from the fatal grip of its once de facto dictator, Saddam Hussein, and the subsequent installation of a democratic government.  Since the inception of this war, there have been many critics, those who support the war efforts and those who oppose them.  Even now, almost three years later, the critiques of this war and its effects on the livelihood of people around the world continue to stir, what seems to be, an unrelenting debate on whether this war is imperative and just, or unnecessary and even malicious.  Today, a plethora of evidence has been collected, and the facts concerning whether this war is maintaining its intended effectiveness--or has become an unintended inefficiency-- are, more than ever, being analyzed, evaluated, and strewn across the global media firmament.  However, although the incalculable amount of critics from both sides of the spectrum continues to bombard the average viewer with self-supposed opinions, hypotheses, and ‘righteous proclamations’ about the validity and overall effects of the war in Iraq, there is evidence supporting both views. The examination of this evidence from both sides of the argument will help to clarify and extrapolate the current conditions of Iraq and how the war is shaping the new, democratic Republic of Iraq.  A little more than two and a half years after the occupation of Iraq by the U.S. and Coalition forces, the Iraqi people, on October 15, 2005, ratified the first Constitution in Iraq’s history.  According to the Constitution, “Iraq is an independent nation, and its system of government is a democratic, federal, representative republic” ("Full Text" 3).  The creation of a democratic state is seen by most as a giant leap forward for the overall condition of the Iraqi people.  With the creation of a constitution, the Iraqi people now have set-forth inalienable rights guaranteed to them by law.  Article 14 of the Constitution states: “Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, creed, belief or opinion, or economic and social status” (7).  Another example of a basic right now afforded to them is declared in Article 15: “Every individual has the right to enjoy life, security and liberty” (7).  For the people of the ‘free world’ these rights might seem intrinsic, but for many of the Iraqi peoples, these basic rights have never been actualized.  Proponents think the people that once only knew the binds of tyranny are now beginning to experience basic  human rights of choice, liberty, and opportunity.  The ratification and implementation of the Constitution of Iraq is a seen as a vital agent for the success and unity that an astounding 63 percent of the population craves, according to vast poll and statistic numbers.         However, a growing concern some critics have towards the U.S.’s installation of democracy in Iraq is the ability of the Iraqi people to elect corrupt, sectarian Islamists with an ideology based on the foundation of an Islamic centralist nation and the destruction of the U.S. infidels.  One critic affirms “Islamic fundamentalists who oppose U.S. interests in the Middle East have benefited from the U.S. policy of promoting democracy, making significant gains in recent elections” (Slavin 1).  The latest democratic elections in Palestine resulting in the empowerment of the Hamas group-- a declared aggressor towards Israel and the U.S. --serves as an example of this claim: as do the political gains of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Lebanese Hezbollah.  Another concern expressed by many is the evident sectarianism in the parliamentary elections in  December of 2005.  Shiite officials took the majority of the seats; Kurdish politicians took a significant amount of the remaining seats.  This left the Sunni, Iraq’s Muslim minority, with very little political representation.  This is a grave concern for many because Sunni extremists are responsible for most of the insurgency and acts of brutality in Iraq.  If the Sunni are not adequately represented by the Constitution and the elected parliament, many believe that the devastating acts of violence towards innocent people and efforts to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq will never come to an end, no matter how strong the security forces.         In order to create a lasting national security and adherence to the law, the U.S. and Coalition forces have gone to great lengths to train well-organized Iraqi military and police forces.  According to the White House, as of late November, 2005, “there [were] over 120 Iraqi Army and Police combat battalions . . . ; of these, about 80 battalions are fighting alongside Coalition forces” (“Renewal” 2).  The White House also announced that “more than 60 influential Sunni clerics issued a fatwa calling on young Sunnis to join the Iraqi Security Forces . . . [and] are helping to make Iraqi Security Forces a truly national institution able to serve, protect, and defend all Iraqis” (3).  The current progress in the training and performance of the Iraqi Security Forces has created a sense of optimism for those who support the effort because the otherwise sectarian groups in Iraq are beginning to work together to promote lasting security for the citizens of Iraq. The security force now reaches figures as high as 227,000, outnumbering the U.S. and is currently establishing a sense of precision and effectiveness seen by the enemy (Jervis 1).            But, although the training and strategic execution of the Iraqi Security Forces have increased dramatically in the last year, so have the insurgent attacks.  According to the U.S. military, “attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians increased 29% . . . launch[ing] 34,131 attacks last year” (Jervis 1).  Many of these attacks are not only targeting the coalition troops and security forces, but are acutely aimed at civilians.  An increase in “suicide and car bombs [is] . . . causing high casualties” according to new statistics (Jervis 2).  The soaring number of casualties is one of the strongest arguments used by those believing in an ineffective war in Iraq.  The “Iraq Body Count, a research group that uses media accounts to measure civilian deaths . . .. Numbered [the casualties] between 27,383 and 30,892”(Dorell 1).  Some sources, like the medical journal The Lancet, say this number is, more accurately, much higher than estimated by Iraq Body Count and could possibly reach into numbers as high as 100,000 casualties of war (1).  The true statistics have yet to be known, but the anger and sadness of such an immense loss continues to be seen worldwide.            Arguably the most upsetting aspect of the war in Iraq, and its negative effect on the people, for many critics, is the ensuing economic plunders that have devastated much of the country.  Iraq’s economy is almost entirely comprised of oil production and receives most of its monetary income from exporting this globally necessity.  The facts are showing that “Iraq’s oil production has fallen below prewar levels to its lowest point in a decade, depriving the country’s fledgling government of badly needed income” (Jervis 1).  A majority of money that comes from oil production is supposed to be used to help in the efforts to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, but because of insurgent attacks and faulty machinery, this effort is nothing more than a dream for many.  Also, the unemployment rate is estimated by many sources to be at a staggering 50 percent. To add to the ominous situation of Iraq’s economy, “runaway crime, especially kidnapping, is forcing Iraqi professionals to flee for neighboring Jordan and other countries, leaving Iraqis lacking essential services” (Peterson, Yaukey 2-3).  This detriment is causing an essential economic crisis for the Iraqi people; one that, critics argue, needs to be rectified.         However, although the economic situation of Iraq may seem dismal, many advocates believe there is progress being made and that the economy could jump back --- given time.  Analysts project that “despite the [economic] challenges, Iraq has benefited from rising oil prices, which have soared to more than $60 a barrel” (Jervis 1).  This has caused a dramatic increase in income for Iraq and continues to do so.  Also, due to the efforts of the Coalition and the new Iraqi leaders, “Iraq has a stable currency, an independent stock exchange, and an independent Central Bank” (“Renewal” 4). In addition, Iraq is alleviating much of the troublesome subsidies on gasoline which deprive the country from using its annual budget to address important issues such as health and the rebuilding of infrastructure (4).  Another goal that is currently  breaking ground due to the efforts of the Coalition is “helping Iraqis better maintain their oil refineries, build oil supply and transportation capabilities, improve the capacity to generate power, and better protect their strategic infrastructure” (4).These improvements may, in time, uproot the current economic hardships and provide fiscal security for the Iraqi people providing a push forward for the new independent, democratic Republic of Iraq.           The war is happening, and will continue to, regardless of what the initial opposition desires.  The prominent issues and debates, however, are not so much focused on the cause of the war, but the ensuing outcomes.  The Coalition and Iraqi forces are working together to promote the stabilization of democracy in a country that has historically experienced tyranny and deception.  Whether or not the Coalition, fronted by the United States, will continue to work with Iraqi leaders for the overall betterment of their society has yet to be known.  Whether the motives of the Bush administration and the U.S. government at large are truly benevolent or terribly besieging is yet to be known.  What is known, however, are the present effects of this war on the Iraqi people and the conditions of the Republic of Iraq.  Many of the effects lead towards destruction and failure, but equally, many seem to be ensuring the people of Iraq with the basic human right to freedom. "Bush Announces Start Of Iraq War."  19 March 2003.  Web.  27 Feb. 2006   Dorell, Oren. "Bush puts deaths of Iraqis at 30,000." USA Today 12 December 2005. Web.  27 February 2006.         "Fact Sheet: Training Iraqi Security Forces." The White House. 30 November 2005.  Web.  27 February 2006. "Full Text of Iraqi Constitution." Washington Post 12 October 2005.  Web.  01 Mar 2006.  Jervis, Rick. "Attacks in Iraq jumped in 2005." USA Today 22 January 2006. Web.  27 February 2006.    - - -  "Pessimism surrounds falling oil production in Iraq." USA Today 10 October 2005.  Web.   27 Feb 2006. Peterson, Patrick and John Yaukey. "Issue of Iraq comes with pros and cons."  29 January 2006.  Web.  27 February 2006.  "Renewal in Iraq." The White House. 18 January 2006.  Web.   27 February 2006.  Slavin, Barbara. "Mideast democracy boosts Islamists ." USA Today 25 January 2006.  Web.   27 February 2006.